Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSRIC


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OSRIC
Appears to be documenting a personal project which was recently completed. Google search for "Old School Reference Index Compilation" (with or without capitalization) returns nothing. FreplySpang 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Searching for "osric" turns up lots of results - because it has other meanings. But it only turns up one result - the creator's site - that is relevant to this usage of "OSRIC". If this were a notable development, other people would be writing about it too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if and when OSRIC becomes well-known or an industry standard, then it would be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article. FreplySpang 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OSRIC is becoming well known among the online gaming community and needs to be documented. It will provide a new avenue for RPG publishing and new material for gamers. Additionally, try  Googling OSRIC...you'll see it there. Please don't delete this entry. ---the author.
 * Delete. Article does not attempt to demonstrate notability per nom. Appears vanispamvertisement.  Alphachimp  talk  18:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Satisfied now? Added a little history to make it more relevant. ---the author.
 * OSRIC is quickly becoming a new standard to permit old school gaming. The materials that it put into the public domain are allowing publishers access to materials they have been denied for the last 20 years, I would call it highly relevant and discourage its removal.  -  strangerAD&D
 * Apparently, the chap above who did the Google search for "Old School Reference Index Compilation" didn't bother to Google for "OSRIC," as I found the OSRIC RPG right on the first page of my Google search using that search term. OSRIC is a ground breaking RPG platform based upon Wizard of the Coast's Open Gaming Liscence that allows for authors and publishers to create material for games that have been out of print for decades. Its truly becoming a phenomena that is rejuvenating "old school gaming," particularly given the ingenius way that the author(s) used the OGL to make certain old school game rules available for those who want to publish using them. OSRIC has its own website, and professional game publishers are even now in the process of publishig OSRIC-compatible gaming materials. It'd be a shame to see Wikipedia delete an entry for something that may well become the industry standard for publishing old school rpg gaming products. -John Stark
 * OSRIC does need and merit a Wikipedia entry, but the article should be more neutral and factual. Castles_and_Crusades is a good example of content which would be appropriate.  Suggest leaving this as a placeholder until edits can be made.  S Marshall 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Cite sources from which a neutral and factual article can be written. Uncle G 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=167259&page=1 ; http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=42 passim ; there are also a variety of other, less significant messageboard threads which may also be relevant. -- (Aside) Messageboard threads have been discussed in a disparaging or dismissive way by other commentators.  I find this disparagement curious in view of the nature of Wikipedia.  S Marshall 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's important about OSRIC is that it's got an open source license and that it creates a platform for any publisher to use it. It has already begun to create a market for this type of publication, with one independent publisher, Expeditious Retreat Press, announcing that they're going to publish under the system.  So, while I agree that the entry should stay, I think that the entry as it stands doesn't really hit on the most significant aspect of what's been done.  I imagine that as more is added over time, it will hit the more significant information.  --Mythmere
 * FreplySpang wrote: "Note: Searching for "osric" turns up lots of results - because it has other meanings. But it only turns up one result - the creator's site - that is relevant to this usage of "OSRIC". If this were a notable development, other people would be writing about it too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if and when OSRIC becomes well-known or an industry standard, then it would be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article." This doesn't make much sense, given that your first complaint was that a Google search didn't yield even a single hit for "Old School Reference Index Compilation." When I pointed out that doing a Google for "OSRIC" brings back a hit on the first page, you now seem to want to change the deletion standard from "no hits on Google" to "the only Google hit is OSRIC's own home page." Further, you assert another new deletion standard with your "when OSRIC becomes well known or an industry standard" comment, but that makes no sense at all. Wikipedia is FILLED with information and articles about subjects that are neither well known nor an industry standard. Indeed, isn't one of the points of having an encyclopedia to preserve and elucidate knowledge about obscure and little-known pieces of information for the general interest and edification of its readers? Your deletion standards are not very consistent.*** John Stark 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I use wikipedia for RPG hobby related searches all the time. It's a great resource for learning about new games I'd like to try and old games whose history and trivia I'm interested in.  I think the OSRIC article may need some work (that's why wikipedia is editable, right?) but in my opinion it's definitely a worthwhile article to have and shouldn't be deleted.  If wikipedia's goal is to offer comprehensive information on subjects people are interested in, then excluding OSRIC makes no sense.  OSRIC has averaged 40 unique IP downloads a day since it was released two weeks ago.  To me, that says people are interested in it.  Having a wikipedia entry provides a centralized (well known) place for people to get information about the game's history, goals, availability and ongoing projects related to it.  I understand that wikipedia doesn't want to become a host for commercial advertisements, but seeing as OSRIC is completely free, I don't see how it would qualify as a commercial venture.  Nobody is attempting to use wikipedia as a means to financial gain.  I sincerely hope the administrators at wikipedia will leave this article in place and suggest that people who find the current form of the entry unsatisfactory make suggestions for improving it rather than just asking for it to go away.  Thanks! 68.187.143.186 20:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Doug Sanders
 * Okay, that was strange. I wasn't able to edit the article itself, but now am able to.John Stark 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - My apologies for writing in a way that was more appropriate for Wikipedia regulars than Wikipedia newcomers. I certainly was not attempting to outline the entirety of Wikipedia's standards for articles in my comments. Probably the most important policy that relates to this article is Verifiability, and the related Reliable sources. Newcomers to Wikipedia may also find the suggestions at Your first article to be helpful in understanding what kind of articles we are looking for. FreplySpang 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FreplySpang, the OSRIC entry passes the test for all three content guiding policies. It is verifiable, as I've posted links not only to OSRIC itself but discussion fora where it was announced; it is not original research in that it doesn't postulate anything; and finally, I gave it from a neutral point of view since a) I'm not the author, and b) no unverifiable claims promoting it are made.  Given also that I've edited the article to include it's recent history, I see no real reason for the OSRIC article to be in the delete pile.  SemajTheSilent
 * Delete, per nom -- The only publication of this program has been on forums, and was only released two weeks ago. The fact of the matter is that this is barely notable even within RPG circles, and is certainly not significant enough for inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Now, it could easily obtain significance or notability in the future; it is rather new, as stated. Another thing - the concern here is not really with articles being used for commercial purposes, but with having articles on subjects that simply are not important.--SB | T 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. Am I to understand that the two main reasons for deleting the OSRIC entry are: 1) It's new and 2) it's not important?  If these are indeed the reasons then 1) how long does something have to exist and 2) how few, or many, people get to decide what is important before an entry is allowed to live?  Thanks in advance for any info. Frnchqrtr 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The reasons for deleting it are that it is a mis-use of Wikipedia to provide primary source material (Wikipedia is not a primary source.) and that it is original research.  If you want to counter those reasons, what you must to is cite sources.  Cite journal articles, magazine features, or books that have been written about OSRIC. Uncle G 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NN, WP:NOT, etc. Also, since no one's mentioned it, this isn't a vote, it has no0thing to do with how many people are for or against it.  It's a discussion- if there's disagreement about deleting an article, it probably wont' be deleted, unless the only people for it are the same ones who wrote it, obviously.  I feel that a month-old, minor program that no one outside of a small forum have heard of is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. --PresN 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not concur with the words "minor" or "small forum" in this comment. S Marshall 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dragonsfoot.org- 2586 forum users (over the course of its lifetime). Alexa rating- 471,092.  I feel that that is small.  While I'm at it, the other forum linked- knights-n-knaves.com - 186 users over the course of its lifetime, Alexa rating of 2,713,432.  Small.  Not bashing either one, I'm sure they're great places, but I don't feel that they are large/notable enough to lend any notablility to OSRIC itself. --PresN 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Search_engine_test Alexa ratings should be disregarded for notability criteria. S Marshall 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're right, it's not a standard used to determine notability. in the 400k and 2.7 million areas is really low though, so even though it can't be used as a sole means of determination, it is relevant. --PresN 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles such as Castles_and_Crusades have similar web presence and distribution figures, but persist on Wikipedia unchallenged. --S Marshall 16:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --Pboyd04 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NN, WP:NOT, WP:V. Did I miss anything? -- Wine Guy  Talk  04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Wine Guy. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability first, article later. -- GWO
 * Delete. I run games for SJGames at conventions; I read the trade newsletters, I keep my ear to the ground. I've never heard of it, and the provided sources provide me with no evidence to believe that it is notable in any way. There are thousands of d20 products released every year; most are fairly worthless retreads of previously published material, and of those that have worth even fewer make a significant impact. I see no mention of significant sales, of being used as a source in other gamebooks, of winning substantial awards. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of barely-or-unpublished d20 books. Get rid of it, and when/if it becomes popular again, we'll recreate it. Captainktainer * Talk 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. OSRIC isn't a d20 book at all, and it hasn't achieved significant sales because it's free.  Above user may need to re-read with more attention.
 * Comment The point is even stronger for games without a core system; if d20 books aren't inherently notable, how much more so books published without support from a major publisher/licensing scheme. And without a sales metric it's even harder to establish impact. All of my points stand, and have now been strengthened. Captainktainer * Talk 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment'. OSRIC isn't a game without a core system.  It does have a licensing scheme (the OGL, which is not the same as d20).
 * Comment Fair enough that it has a license, but the OGL imparts no real accountability or business relationship between the product and a major publisher (nor is the OGL actually a system; it's a license vaguely akin to the GFDL). Without a substantial and active relationship with an important figure in the industry, heavy sales/downloads, earth-shattering importance for the evolution of roleplaying games, substantial coverage from the trade press or newspapers with national circulation, or historical importance, it doesn't meet the lowest notability threshold. Captainktainer * Talk 10:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.